“marginally significant”

Regarding statistical analysis, the only interaction terms that came out marginally significant when fitting the full model was between the group and the iontophoretic dose ( p = 0.07, below the predefined level of 0.1, see Methods).

The main effect of direction consistency was marginally significant ( M = 18.3 ms), F (1, 13) = 4.0, p = 0.07.

The indirect path from structural racism to IPV perpetration via racial discrimination and stress was marginally significant (B = 0.05, p =.07).

When participants were stratified by their baseline performance (median spilt on total points at baseline), we found a marginally significant Drug × Baseline Performance Group interaction (Drug × Baseline Performance Group interaction: F (1,92) = 3.20, p = 0.07; see Figure 2C and 7A).

Sample type showed a marginally significant effect (p-value = 0.07), with the 6% M and 9% samples demonstrating superior performance compared to other samples.

There was marginally significant improvement within medicated and non-medicated participants in the treatment group for DBP from baseline to 6-month follow-up ( P = 0.07).

However, the inverse association between total fat intake and PRISm remained marginally significant (adjusted OR = 0.90 per SD; 95% CI: 0.80–1.01; p = 0.070).

A marginally significant difference in accuracy existed between spatial frequency pairs of memory item and probe ( p = 0.07; Figure 3c ).

We retained models with marginally significant results (0.05< p< 0.07) but indicate weaker confidence in them.

Veterans decreased in perceived structure from the military to their first civilian job ( p = 0.03) whereas civilian students non-significantly increased in their perceived structure from their education to their first post-graduation job ( p = 0.29), resulting in a marginally significant veteran status by context interaction, F (1, 178) = 3.27, p = 0.07, η 2 = 0.01 (see Study 1 Supplemental Analysis in supplemental materials for full results).

In contrast, the difference in groEL expression between the three groups was marginally significant (ANOVA, F (2,18) = 3.15, p = 0.07).

In the fully adjusted analyses, the interaction remained statistically significant for housing quality (p=0.02), and was marginally significant for maternal age (p=0.07).

Follow-up t -tests showed that the magnitude of the Validity effect was similar for Groups 1 and 2 (54 and 56 ms, respectively; t < 1), and that the effect was smaller for Group 3 (44 ms) than for Group 2 [ t (238) = 2.44, p < 0.02] and, although marginally significant, than for Group 1 [ t (238) = 1.84, p < 0.07].

Social anxiety reached a marginally significant main effect, F (1, 92) = 3.33, p = 0.07, ∂η 2 = 0.04, while degree of depressive symptoms did not, F (1, 92) < 0.10, p = 0.76.

The difference between the rate of movement of foetuses of smoking and nonsmoking mothers was larger in magnitude, and was marginally significant (p = 0.07).

The association was marginally significant (P = 0.07).

Defined by methodology A, B, or C, higher PD-L1 group showed a better prognosis trend although the difference was marginally significant as determined by the log-rank test (p=0.07 as classified by methodology A, p=0.14 as classified by methodology B, p=0.12 as classified by methodology C, Figures 1A–C ).

Participants’ Evaluation An ANOVA on the participants’ evaluation revealed a significant main effect of PDB (M high PDB = 4.26, M low PDB = 4.84; F(1,92) = 7.706, p = 0.007) and marginally significant main effect of the purchase type (M material purchase = 4.35, M experiential purchase = 4.74; F(1,92) = 3.407, p = 0.07).

The difference in RTs between the VR-Lab and the Desktop-Lab conditions was marginally significant ( P =.07).

The difference between studies on rTMS familiarity was marginally significant ( p = 0.07, Cohen’s d = 0.25), suggesting that amount of information about rTMS may increase perceived familiarity with it, though the effect size was small.

However, we also obtained a marginally significant interaction effect between these two factors, F (2, 308) = 2.66, p = 0.07, η = 0.02.

Their survival curves begin to diverge at the 18 month time point and the difference is marginally significant (p < 0.07).

Similarly, the difference in mean BMI of the Δ TTTCT deletion positive relative to the deletion negative East Asian individuals was greater in females than in males ( Table 2 ) and the difference between the genotypes was marginally significant in females but not in males (p = 0.07 for females versus p = 0.45 for males, t test).

This was primarily the case for the trustworthiness trait [congruent: Pearson’s r = 0.0076 ± 0.066 (mean ± SD across neurons); incongruent: r = −0.0075 ± 0.062; two-tailed paired t test: t (628) = 2.96, p = 0.003]; the dominance trait only showed a marginally significant difference between conditions (congruent: r = −0.0073 ± 0.060; incongruent: r = 0.0015 ± 0.060; t (628) = 1.82, p = 0.07).

In addition, we found a marginally significant interaction effect between embodiment and attitude, p = 0.07.